Evaluation summary forms and guidelines for PS and PW
Contents Page
Evaluator summary of all non-price attributes: PS and PW (Tender evaluation form F) 89
Price quality method simple: PS and PW (Tender evaluation form G) 90
Price quality method special: PS and PW (Tender evaluation form H) 91
Brook’s law method: PS (Tender evaluation form I) 92
Non-price attribute grading (Attribute and sub-attribute grades) 93
Guidance to evaluators on the usage of evaluation forms A to I
Note: Forms A to D may be found in SM030, and A to E in SM031 and SM032.
Evaluator summary of all non-price attributes: PS and PW
Form F
Contract no: Contract name: TET names
Region: Date: Agreed grade
Tenderer Relevant experience Track record Relevant skills Resources Methodology
Physical Works Professional Services Contract For: Region: Contract No: Date: Weighting 100%
Each Tenderer's Weighted sum - Lowest Weighted sum Weighted Sum Margin x Evaluation Estimate / Price Weight Confirm SQP & record justification for any adjustments
ATP evaluation must be shown and recorded May not be altered once the price envelope is opened
TET Signature Date TET Name
Adjusted Evaluation Price is the Evaluation Price less the SQP and ATP. The preferred Tenderer is the Tenderer with the lowest Adjusted Evaluation Price
TET Signature Date TET Name
The assessment above reflects the evaluation of the TET. All TET members have completed and signed appendix IX – Potential Conflict of Interest/Bias Declaration:
Please fill in the green fields only
Remove Provisional Sums (or any other Schedule fixed amounts in the RFT) from the Tender Prices and Estimate
Appendix VII Form G
Price Quality Method Simple
TET's agreement on the calculated or adjusted SQP and ATP, and calculations verified correct: Base Estimate (1)
Delegated Authority
Tenderer's Full Name
Date Less all Schedule Fixed Amounts
Evaluation Estimate
Final adjusted and justified SQP (or none)
Lowest Weighted Sum Relevant Skills
Track Record
Non-Priced Attributes Weighted Sum
Tenderers Indices (Grade x Weight)
ENVELOPE 2 Price Evaluation Weighted Sum Margin
Supplier Quality Premium (SQP)
SQP + ATP
Non-Price Tenderers Grades from Form F
Price Weight Methodology
Adjusted Evaluation Price Less all Schedule Fixed Amounts Evaluation Price
ENVELOPE 1 Non-Price Evaluation
Tender Price
Resources
Alternative Tender Premium (ATP) Tenderer Relevant Experience
Date
Authorisation to open price envelopes:
Delegated Authority Signature
Note:This spreadsheet allows up to 10 tenderers to be evaluated. First unprotect the worksheet by selecting "Tools", "Protection", "Unprotect". Highlight column I and N, and select "Unhide". Repeat the same for Column S and X, and row 35 and 40. (1) Refer to Terminology Section of CPM for definition of Base Estimate.
Authorisation to begin award process:
Physical Works Professional Services Contract For: Region: Contract No: Date: Weighting
Weighted sum x Maximum Risk Consequence
Each Tenderer's Risk Premium - Lowest Risk Premium
Confirm SQP & record justifications for any adjustments Value of Product Premium where provided for in RFT ATP evaluation must be shown and recorded May not be altered once price envelope is opened
TET Signature Date TET Name
Adjusted Evaluation Price is the Evaluation Price less the SQP and ATP. The preferred Tenderer is the Tenderer with the lowest Adjusted Evaluation Price
TET Signature Date TET Name Relevant Skills Track Record Relevant Experience ENVELOPE 1 Non-Price Evaluation
Evaluation Price Tender Price
Estimate
Lowest Risk Premium
ENVELOPE 2 Price Evaluation Risk Value
Supplier Quality Premium (SQP)
SQP + TCA + ATP
Tangible Cost Adjustment (TCA)(2) Tenderer
TET's agreement on the calculated or adjusted SQP and ATP, and calculations verified correct: Resources
Non-Priced Attributes Weighted Sum
The assessment above reflects the evaluation of the TET. All TET members have completed and signed appendix IX – Potential Conflict of Interest/Bias Declaration:
Base Estimate (1) (Not used in calculations) Less all Schedule Fixed Amounts
Maximum Risk Consequence
Final adjusted and justified SQP (or none)
Alternative Tender Premium (ATP) Methodology
Adjusted Evaluation Price Less all Schedule Fixed Amounts
Date Delegated Authority
Tenderer's Full Name
Authorisation to begin award process: Please fill in the green fields only
Non-Price Tenderers Grades from Form F Tenderers Indices (Grade x Weight)
Authorisation to open price envelopes:
Appendix VII Form H
Price Quality Method Special
Remove Provisional Sums (or any other Schedule fixed amounts in the RFT) from the Tender Prices and Estimate
Delegated Authority Signature Date
Note:This spreadsheet allows up to 10 tenderers to be evaluated. First unprotect the worksheet by selecting "Tools", "Protection", "Unprotect". Highlight column I and N, and select "Unhide". Repeat the same for Column S and X, and row 35 and 40. (1) Refer to Terminology Section of CPM for definition of Base Estimate. (2) TCA only apply to Design and Construct Contracts
Contract For: Region: Contract No: Date: Weighting 10% 10% 25% 40% TET Signature Date TET Name
Adjusted Evaluation Price is the Evaluation Price less the SQP and ATP. The preferred Tenderer is the Tenderer with the lowest Adjusted Evaluation Price
TET Signature Date TET Name
May not be altered once price envelope is opened
ENVELOPE 2 Price of Highest Overall Weighted Sum Tender
Please fill in the green fields only
Highest Overall (Adjusted) Weighted Sum
Non-Price Tenderers Grades from Form F
Methodology
Remove Provisional Sums (or any other Schedule fixed amounts in the RFT) from the Tender Price and Estimate
Appendix VII
Delegated Authority
Tenderer Full Name
Form I
Brook's Law Method
Date TET's agreement on the calculated or adjusted SQP and ATP, and calculations verified correct:
The assessment above reflects the evaluation of the TET. All TET members have completed and signed appendix IX – Potential Conflict of Interest/Bias Declaration:
Base Estimate (1)
Less all Schedule Fixed Amounts Evaluation Estimate
Tenderers Indices (Grade x Weighting)
Adjusted (Manual) Evaluation Price Less all Schedule Fixed Amounts Price for Negotiation
ENVELOPE 1 Non-Price Evaluation
Tender Price of Highest Overall Weighted Sum Tender
Relevant Skills Track Record
Non-Priced Attributes Weighted Sum Final (Manual) Adjusted Weighted Sum
Tenderer Relevant Experience
Authorisation to open price envelopes:
Delegated Authority Signature Date
Professional Services
Note: This spreadsheet allows up to 10 tenderers to be evaluated. First unprotect the worksheet by selecting "Tools", "Protection", "Unprotect". Highlight column I and N, and select "Unhide". Repeat the same for Column S and X, and row 35 and 40. (1) Refer to Terminology Section of CPM for definition of Base Estimate.
Authorisation to begin award process: Signature
Non-price attribute grading
The following supplements the definitions in the Transport Agency’s Procurement manual – provided to assist evaluators in distinguishing between the terms used on tender evaluation forms and the allocation of an appropriate grade.
A scale of 0 to 100 is to be used, generally in steps of 5 and the groupings defined below.
90, 95 or 100 – Excellent: Only awarded when all requirements are met in an outstanding manner. Other definitions include: extremely related, superlative, significantly within budget, consistently ahead of deadline, directly applicable.
75, 80 or 85 – Good: Where requirements are fully covered in all material aspects.
Other definitions include: very related, exceeds requirements, well within budget, frequently ahead of deadline, very related.
60, 65 or 70 – Above average: Where requirements are adequately covered.
Other definitions include: particularly related, requirements fully met, within budget, occasionally exceeds.
50 or 55 – Average: Adequate with some deficiencies which are not likely to have any adverse effect.
Other definitions include: related, acceptable, on budget, on time, meets requirements.
40 or 45 – Below average: Barely adequate and would need minor improvement if selected. Other definitions include: barely related, needs improvement, exceeds budget, misses deadline, adequate.
35 or less – Poor: Generally unacceptable and ruled out of further consideration.
Other definitions include: not related, unsatisfactory, significantly exceeds budget, frequently misses deadline, barely adequate.
Guidance to evaluators on the usage of evaluation
forms A to I
Form A – Relevant experience and form B – Track recordEnter the tenderer name, evaluator name and date, and the description of the five tenderer-nominated projects. For each sub-attribute enter a grade for each project. From the average of these grades, multiplied by the subattribute weight derive a total subattribute grade. If other than average of grades the process should be documented. From the subattribute totals calculate the attribute grade. If no subattribute weights have been specified, the evaluator should still consider the importance of each sub-attribute when deriving an attribute total and document the process.
Form C – Relevant skills
Enter the tenderer name, evaluator name and date, and the names relating to each of the consultant's personnel from the personnel schedule. For each subattribute enter a grade for each person. Each evaluator should consider the relevance of other tenderer-nominated personnel and any other personnel requirements which, from the contract documents should be included for scoring and, the adequacy of nominated personnel in relation to technical/managerial qualifications and experience as required for the position nominated for. After having considered these issues a total subattribute shall be derived and the process should be documented. Use subattribute weights and personnel weights, if specified, to calculate the attribute grade. If no personnel weights have been specified, the evaluator should still consider the importance of each position when deriving an attribute total and document the process.
Form D – Methodology
Enter the tenderer name, evaluator name and date. Enter a grade for each of the factors listed. Evaluators should consider the importance to the contract of each factor when deriving the rating and any weight given. Factor grades are multiplied by the weighting (where given) and the results summed to determine the overall grade.
Form E – Resources
Enter the tenderer name, evaluator name and date. Enter a grade for each of the factors listed. Evaluators should consider the importance to the contract of each factor when deriving the rating and any weight given. Factor grades are multiplied by the weighting (where given) and the results summed to determine the overall grade.
Form F - Evaluator summary of all non-price attributes
Enter TET member’s names in upper box relative to where their grades are entered on the summary form. Enter the date and names of tenderers. Enter each evaluator grade for each attribute against the appropriate tenderer.
Where evaluator grades are of similar ranking for each subattribute for each tenderer the grades for each attribute may be averaged and entered in the highlighted box. If there are marked differences between evaluator grades or rankings are divergent, a review of subattribute scoring may be required to identify the differences and agree a similarly-ranked grade. All tenderers final grades are over-viewed by the TET to ensure that they are reasonable and appropriate when compared with each other and as appropriate other recent contract evaluations.
Forms G and H – Price quality method simple and Price quality method special
Forms G and H are designed as spreadsheets and used to calculate consultant/contractor non-price indices, SQP and preferred tenderer.
Guidelines to use of the price quality method and example calculations are to be found in appendix XXV. Form I Brook’s law method: PS
Forms I is designed as a spreadsheet and used to calculate the tenderer with the highest overall weighted sum of non-price indices and preferred tenderer. The form provides for the preferred tenderers non-price to be entered and final negotiated price.
